Cement with reduced permeability

ABSTRACT

A cementitious mixture to make structures with reduction of gas permeability was disclosed. The mixture includes, cementitious materials, and one or more divalent magnesium-iron silicate that in neutral or basic aqueous solutions have the capacity to be a latent hydraulic binder comprising 2% to 99% of divalent magnesium-iron silicate by weight of total hydraulic solid materials. This can be used to produce a cementitious structure for preventing gas transfer between a first region and a second region. A cement slurry was also disclosed.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims priority to pending International ApplicationPCT/NO2020/050291 (filed Nov. 27, 2020) and Norwegian applicationsNO20200204 (filed Feb. 16, 2020), NO20200472 (filed Apr. 17, 2020), andNO20191424 (filed Dec. 2, 2019). The entire contentions of these arehereby incorporated by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to the field of cementitious materialssuch as Portland Cement, pozzolans and geopolymers. The purpose of theinvention is to apply divalent magnesium-iron solid solution silicates(for example the mineral groups olivine, orthopyroxene, amphibole, andserpentine), here called “magnesium-iron silicates”, as latent hydraulicbinders for cementitious mineral admixtures, thereby providing long termhydrostatic pressure of the structure, by increasing the integrity,volume, weathering and/or lifetime of the cementitious mineral admixturestructure in order to achieve superior seals against gas migration. Inparticular, the sealing of structures against carbon dioxide andnitrogen.

The term “divalent magnesium-iron solid solution silicates” is a term ofthe art in geological and mineralogical sciences. A common short-handterm in the art is “magnesium-iron silicates”. In natural earth-basedsystems, there are more magnesium ions than iron ions present.

Magnesium-iron silicates have variable compositions due to“solid-solution” chemistry mainly involving Mg²⁺ and Fe²⁺ ions. Theseare silicate systems where iron and magnesium ions can occupy the sameplace in the mineral. This is called substitution and can occur over thecomplete range of possible compositions because iron and magnesium havea similar atomic radius (Fe⁺²=0.78 Å and Mg⁺²=0.72 Å) and can have thesame valence state.

As an example, the formula for olivine is often given as: (Mg,Fe)₂SiO₄.To one skilled in the art, olivine can be thought of as a mixture ofMg₂SiO₄ (forsterite—Fo) and Fe₂SiO₄ (fayalite—Fa). If there is moreforsterite than fayalite (thus more magnesium than iron), it can bereferred to as a magnesium-iron silicate. If there was more fayalitethan forsterite, then it can be referred to as an iron-magnesiumsilicate.

As another example, the formula for orthopyroxene is often given as:(Mg,Fe)₂Si2O₆. To one skilled in the art, olivine can be thought of as amixture of Mg₂Si₂O₆ (Enstatite—En) and Fe₂Si₂O₆ (Ferrosilite).Orthopyroxenes always have some Mg present in nature and pureFerrosilite is only made artificially. Orthopyroxene with more Mg thanFe is referred to as a magnesium-iron silicate. If there was moreferrosilite than enstatite, then it can be referred to as aniron-magnesium silicate.

The present invention relates to a cementitious mixture for reduction ofgas permeability. Additionally structures to prevent the transfer of gas(including in a super critical state) from one region to another.Finally, the present invention relates to a cement structures preparedby the method.

BACKGROUND FOR THE INVENTION

The invention relates to the decreased gas permeability of cementitiousstructures over time by including/adding magnesium-iron silicates incementitious mineral admixtures as a latent hydraulic binder, and toincrease its capacity to handle weathering and exposure to flow of watermixtures on and through the cementitious materials.

Portland cement is a common type of cement used around the world.Depending on the raw materials used and the process used to combinethem, Portland cements can be modified easily. Type of cement isclassified by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) as TypeI, II, III, or V white cement, and by American Petroleum Institute (API)as Class A, C, G, or H.

The present invention is a new cement type as it provides long termhydrostatic pressure of the structure by increasing in volume whenexposed to hazard conditions like high temperatures and pressure, gassesand liquids.

Well Integrity is defined in NORSOK D-010: “application of technical,operational and organizational solutions to reduce risk of uncontrolledrelease of formation fluids throughout the life cycle of a well”. AND:“There shall be two well barriers available during all well activitiesand operations, including suspended or abandoned wells, where a pressuredifferential exists that may cause uncontrolled outflow from theborehole/well to the external environment”.

To ensure safe and economic sustainable operations with wells, cement isan important component. It is a factor to secure a well barrier toprevent leakages and reduce risk under well activities like drilling,producing and intervention. Primary cementing provides zonal isolation.To correct problems associated with the primary cement job, a remedialcementing can be necessary. Cement is also used in the oil- and gasindustry for plug and abandonment (prepare the well to be closedpermanently (P&A) and to close the well permanently (PP&A)).

Cement, as used as a binder in concrete, is also highly relevant fortopics like nuclear waste deposits, oil- and gas reservoirs,landfilling, carbon dioxide storage in geological formations, as well asin sealing off hazardous gases emanating from the ground into homes andbusinesses.

Alternatives proposed to ordinary well cements are Geopolymers. Theseare materials that are visco-elastic. An example of this physicalproperty is the mixture of cornflour and water; it is hard when handledand soft when held. Another example is Bingham Plastic. This behaveslike mayonnaise (soft when handled, hard when held). Neither of theseproducts are currently reasonably priced or particularly standardfriendly.

Metamorphism is the mineralogical and structural adjustment of solidrocks to physical and chemical conditions that have been imposed atdepths below the near surface zones of weathering and diagenesis, andthat differ from those conditions under which the rocks in questionoriginated.

Inorganic materials that have pozzolanic or latent hydraulic bindingeffects are commonly used in cementitious materials. Hydraulicity isdefined as “the property of limes and cements to set and harden underwater whether derived from a naturally hydraulic lime, cement or apozzolan”. A latent hydraulic binder reacts in more slowly and due to atrigger in a particular manner in order to change the properties ofcementitious products. It will come to a full strength on its own, whilevery slowly. These have the purpose of either stretching the need forlime clinker in the cementitious mineral admixture or improve theproperties of the cementitious mineral admixture.

These have the purpose of either stretching the need for lime clinker inthe cementitious mineral admixture or improve the properties of thecementitious mineral admixture.

While one of the most prolific man-made materials, cementitiousstructures like concrete, mortar and cement is notoriously permeable tofluids (liquids and gases), compromising their integrity and theisolation capabilities of the structures the materials make up. To amendthe permeability of cementitious materials, slurries or solids are oftenmodified with organic compounds like polymers and elastomers. Polymersand elastomers decay over time and frequently have concerns in terms ofenvironmental safety. The discoveries of safe materials that makecementitious materials less permeable are therefore desirable.

Structures made from cementitious materials are frequently used to sealoff reservoirs of fluids. Particularly, the sealing off gases emanatingfrom the ground. These include cement sealing of underground gasreservoirs from petroleum and geothermal energy extraction, radon gasbarriers of buildings, and the long term sealing off storage ofhazardous waste emitting gas. Well integrity problems due to degradedcement sheaths are a known cause of leaks through active and abandonedwells. Development of an improved well plugging material that hindersleakage through well plugs is likely to have major positiveenvironmental impact, as it improves long-term well integrity andreduces leakage to the environment. Our invention, as a cement additivematerial added to cementitious mineral admixture materials,magnesium-iron silicates will increase the cement-plug lifetime for thedrilling, abandonment of oil and gas wells in general, but also thosepenetrating present or future carbon-dioxide storage reservoirs. Currentpractices on P&A involve massive retrieval (“pulling”) of steeltubulars. This is an environmental work hazard due to the application ofrotating methods (cutting/milling) that can threaten workers, all thewhile very costly in rig time.

Permeability

The ability for fluids (gas or liquid) to flow through rocks/cement ispermeability. The flow rate is related to the material's density. For aliquid, the density is almost independent of conditions. For gases, thedensities depend upon pressure, temperature and also but less oncomposition and extent. Dependent upon pressure and temperature thegases change volume as they are compressible. In addition, the rate offlow through a material is highly dependent on the viscosity of thefluids passing through the material.

The permeability is the property of solid materials that is anindication of the ability for gas or liquid to flow through it.Permeability comes about through the connectivity of pores in a solid.While a material can be very porous, the pores may not be connected, andthe permeability can be low. An example is foamed materials. Likewise, adense material with few pores can have distinct cracks that allow thefluids to flow through it. An example is shrinkage cracks that formalong the boundaries to other solids, called Micro annuli for wells.

Gas migration through a cementitious material is known to be a majorissue in petroleum and geothermal wells, and also is a worry for theisolation of hazardous materials. Once the gas migrates through thematerial, it can not only pass through but create dissolution pathwaysthat later gas can pass through causing harmful leaks. The primarypathway for gas to migrate long term, after the cement has set andcured, is through the cracks towards the surroundings, in well cementingcalled the micro annulus.

A sealed reservoir of a fluid (liquid or gas) must withstanddifferential pressure across the reservoir, as the direction and rate offlow is related to the pressure difference in reservoir zones, betweenreservoir and well etc. It is therefore highly desirable thatcementitious structures that are to be used to seal a reservoir be ableto tolerate high values of differential pressure.

Cement slurry design is affected by e.g. depth of the well because depthinfluence on temperature, hydrostatic and friction/shearpressure/stress, which type and volume of wellbore fluids. Well holesize and casing size varies also with depth.

Darcy's Law

The physics of flow through a porous media like those of cementitiousstructures are generally described by Darcy's law:

$Q = {- \frac{{kA}( {p_{b} - p_{a}} )}{\mu\; L}}$

The discharge or flow, Q (m3/s), is equal to the product of theintrinsic permeability of the medium, k (m2), the cross-sectional areato flow, A (units of area, e.g., m2), and the total pressure drop(pb−pa) (pascals), all divided by the dynamic viscosity, μ (Pa·s), andthe length over which the pressure drop is taking place L (m).

Permeability is measured in Darcy. 1 Darcy=1000 Millidarcy (mD).Concrete can have a permeability between 0.1 mD-1 mD to small gases suchas nitrogen. Cement may be designed to sustain permeability issues, byfor example adding superfine amorphous silica with expanders (Periclasemineral powder) that makes the blend very costly.

Fluid and Gas in Wells

Gas communication through a cemented annulus has been recognized as amajor problem for a considerable number of years. Previously gasmigration in a wellbore was considered to exist only at thecasing-cement or cement-formation interfaces, and bonding was consideredto be a major cause for gas communication. This is still a major factorto contend with; however, it is not the only problem that may beresponsible for gas communication between multiple permeable formations.Causes of gas migration through a cemented column. Factors found to bemost important for prevention of gas migration were: 1. Mud-CementDensity (Effective hydrostatic head), 2. Cement Filtration Control, 3.Cement Viscosity or Gelation, 4. Borehole Mud Removal, 5. Setting Timeor Temperature, 6. Pipe Movement and 7. Centralization.

Gas migration through cement has been a major problem in the drillingindustry for the last two decades, while shallow water flow is a morerecent problem. When shallow gas starts flowing it may be difficult tostop, and time-consuming squeeze cementing jobs become necessary. Inmany instances this type of flow has turned into blowouts. One candistinguish between three different paths to the surface:

-   -   through the wellbore,    -   through cement behind the casing,    -   through weakness in the sediments.

In ordinary cementitious materials, the cement sets and ceases totransmit hydrostatic pressure across the gas zone. By usingmagnesium-iron silicates as an additive material, the long-termhydrostatic pressure is maintained, reducing the probability of gasemanating through and causing harm.

Carbonation

The patent literature has many examples of cement mineral mixtures forproducing concrete to defend the cement construction from a reactionwith CO₂, named a carbonation process. Carbonation is a well-knownreaction for all lime-cement mixtures and changes its mineralcomposition from CaO (lime) to CaCO₃ (Calcium carbonate) and thishappens naturally over time due to weathering. The magnesium-ironsilicates will also react with the CO₂ and the minerals formed due tocarbonation will expand into gaps and cracks of the cementitiousstructure in order to keep the structure sealed.

Magnesium-iron silicates can be carbonized (e.g. altered by CO₂), andtherefore will increase the cement-plug lifetime for the cementadmixtures in wells when exposed to CO₂, particularly those penetratingcarbon-dioxide storage (CCS) reservoirs. (FR-2.939.429). That patentshows features of the reaction of olivine with CO₂ producing magnesiumcarbonate, creating a self-healing cement in actual conditions in thewell.

Below is an example of a carbonation process of the magnesium end memberolivine reacting with carbon dioxide.

Carbonation

Mg₂SiO₄ + 2CO₂ → 2MgCO₃ + SiO₂ Forsterite carbon-dioxide Magnesitequartz Mg₂Si₂O₆ + 2CO₂ → 2MgCO₃ + 2SiO₂ Enstatite carbon-dioxideMagnesite quartz

The carbonation process example happens naturally, where CO₂ reacts withthe forsterite endmember of the olivine solid solution series.

Hydration

An object of the present invention is to improve the properties of acementitious mineral admixture by adding a pozzolanic or latenthydraulic binder that reacts through hydration i.e. with H₂O and otheraqueous solutions. There are a multitude of pozzolans and latenthydraulic binders used in the cementitious mineral admixtures containinglime (CaO), and water. Pozzolans include a number of natural andmanufactured materials, such as ash, slag etc. The pozzolans impartspecific properties to cement. Pozzolanic cements may have superiorstrength at a later age and may be more resistant to weathering.

The hydration reactions described here happen at the very low end of thepressure- and temperature range generally discussed in metamorphicpetrology. Diagenesis, weathering and very low-grade metamorphism arethe main processes. In geochemical reactions, an added forcing on areaction can be geochemical instabilities, where minerals or solutionsnot in equilibrium seeks to react towards a steady state. In ourinvention, we are utilizing anthropogenically induced geochemicalinstabilities to induce low, very low-grade metamorphism, diagenesis andweathering. Over time, even olivine grains covered in an aqueoussolution and left at room temperature will weather to alterationminerals.

Below is shown some of the reactions of end-member olivine (forsteriteand fayalite) and orthopyroxene (enstatite and ferosilite) when hydratedin reaction with H₂O. It may occur according to these but not limited tothe following reaction equations:

3Mg₂SiO₄ + SiO₂ + 4H₂O → 2Mg₃Si₂O₅(OH)₄ Forsterite Quartz waterSerpentine and 2 Mg₂SiO₄ + 3H₂O → Mg₃Si₂O₅(OH)₄ + Mg(OH)₂ Forsteritewater Serpentine Brucite and 3Fe₂SiO₄ + 2H₂O → 2Fe₃O₄ 3SiO₂ + 2H₂Fayalite water Magnetite aqueous silica hydrogen 3Mg₂Si₂O₆ + 2SiO₂ +4H₂O → 2Mg₃Si₂O₅(OH)₄ Enstatite Quartz water Serpentine and 2 Mg₂Si₂O₆ +3H₂O → Mg₃Si₂O₅(OH)₄ + Mg(OH)₂ Enstatite water Serpentine Brucite And 3Fe₂Si₂O₆ + 2H₂O → 2Fe₃O₄ 6SiO₂ + 2H₂ Ferrosilite water Magnetite aqueoussilica hydrogennote that forsterite is the magnesium endmember of the olivine solidsolution series and fayalite would be the divalent iron endmember of theolivine solid solution series. an olivine with 90% forsterite would beassigned fo90. Enstatite is the magnesium endmember, and ferrosilite isthe iron endmember of orthopyroxene solid solution series. Anorthopyroxene with 90% enstatite would be assigned En₉₀. A solidsolution mineral series allows cations of similar size and valency canbe exchanged in the same location in the crystal lattice, based on theexternal forces that they are exposed to. For olivine and orthopyroxenein natural systems, the magnesium endmember indicates highercrystallization temperatures than the iron endmember does. Therefore,the mantle rocks predominantly exist of fo93-fo89 olivine and En₉₀orthopyroxenes. Pure forsterite is rare in nature and Ferrosilite isonly industrially made.

The purpose of the present invention is to utilize a similar reactionpattern of magnesium-iron silicates in hydration reactions (with water(H₂O) and associated aqueous solutions (e.g. brines)), in that thecomposition is used as enhancers in cementitious mineral admixturematerials, as a pozzolan, a latent hydraulic binder, as a filler, forthe use of producing amorphous silica in the latent reaction, and toprovide a natural anti-fouling agent in cementitious concrete and/ormortar structures in general.

As disclosed above the present invention is a cement additive materialthat is a pozzolanic or latent hydraulic binder made from magnesium-ironsilicates that improve the properties of a cementitious mineraladmixture and the outcome of the products made from the admixture. Ourproduct is a cement additive material that is a latent hydraulic binderthat is activated through hydration and is intended for cementitiousmineral admixtures for the purpose of reducing the gas permeability ofstructures produced over time.

Bonding of Cement

The quality of cured cement is commonly associated with the propertiesof cement materials and cement placement in the wellbore. The innersurface roughness of pipes affects cement plug sealing significantly.Very rough pipes significantly reduce the gas leak rate. Neat cementplugs vs silica cement system shows that neither produce a tight cementplug, and where silica cement systems comprising expanders is thetightest cement. However, the use of expanders would produce a bettersealing performance.

In the silica cement when exposed to CO₂-saturated brine, thecarbonation region consisted of two distinct layers with a roughinterface region containing wormhole-like features. The formation ofthese two layers is proposed to be due to calcium carbonate dissolutionand re-precipitation.

SHORT SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In a first aspect, the present invention relates to a cementitiousmixture including: one or more divalent magnesium-iron silicate that inneutral or basic aqueous solutions have the capacity to be a latenthydraulic binder comprising 2% to 99% of divalent magnesium-ironsilicate by weight of total hydraulic solid materials.

An aspect, discloses the use constructing solidified cementitiousstructures wherein the gas permeability is at most 1 μD, preferably 0.5μD, more preferably 0.1 μD, even more preferably 0.05 μD, and mostpreferably 0.005 μD.

Another aspect discloses a cementitious slurry for reduced gaspermeability that included: cementitious materials; water; and one ormore divalent magnesium-iron silicate that in neutral or basic aqueoussolutions have the capacity to be a latent hydraulic binder comprising2% to 99% of divalent magnesium-iron silicate by weight of totalhydraulic solid materials.

In another aspect, a method is disclosed which includes:

a) mixing cement with a cement additive that comprises an admixture ofone or more of divalent magnesium-iron silicates with the capacity toact as a latent hydraulic binder to a cement mixture, said cementadditive comprises 2% to 99%, of divalent magnesium-iron silicate byweight of total hydraulic solid materials;c) blending the cement mixture to a neutral or basic slurry by theaddition of waterd) making a structure from the cement mixturee) allowing the structure to set.

An example, discloses the use constructing solidified cementitiousstructures wherein the gas permeability is at most 1 μD, preferably 0.5μD, more preferably 0.1 μD, even more preferably 0.05 μD, and mostpreferably 0.005 μD.

In various examples of each aspect, the magnesium-iron silicate is byweight of total hydraulic solid is between 10% and 98%, 15% and 99%, 10%and 55%, 20% and 50%, 15% and 25%, 20% and 80%, or 20% and 60%. Infurther examples, the magnesium-iron silicate includes or consists ofmineral group olivines, orthopyroxenes, amphiboles, serpentines, or amixture thereof.

Background Discussion of the Water to Cement Ratio

The water to cement ratio, often designated W/C or w/c, is a veryimportant factor in the forming of a cured product with the desiredmechanical strength and durability. Additionally, pourability of theslurry is affected by the W/C ratio.

Abram's law illustrates that the strength of a concrete's inverserelationship to the W/C ratio:

$S = \frac{A}{B^{({W/C})}}$Where S is the strength of concrete, A and B are empirical constants,and W/C is the water to cement ratio (varies from 0.3 to 1.2). Thisformula is most applicable for situations where there the cement doesnot contain special additives to overcome the issues surrounding W/Cratios of 0.3 to 1.2. One skilled in the art will be aware of this andcalculate the predicted strength using other means and techniques. Themost common industrial use of cement is in making concrete. Thestrongest concrete typically has a W/C ratio of 0.4 to 0.7. Also notethat while concrete is a common application of cement, there are otherapplications (e.g. mortars).

High W/C ratios (indicating high water content) present specialproblems. While they are more pourable, the cured product has problemswith strength. One cause of this is that as this leaves large pores inthe cement structure as it dries. Another problem is that there is alarge amount of shrinkage as the cement cures. Additives are typicallyadded for W/C ratios over 0.7. The present invention is well suited forhigh W/C ratios because it both fills pores and expands as it cures.

Low W/C ratios (indicating high cement content) will normally lead to astronger product, up until a point. However, water is needed to activatethe chemical process itself. Without enough water, the cement willremain too dry; cured structures will easily break or crumble.Additionally, with low W/C ratios, the slurry can become almostimpossible to pour. A common solution has been to use special additives(e.g. plasticizers) to solve these problems.

This is a practical way to describe a slurry or a method of making aslurry, but it may not be the easiest way of describing a dry mix withan additive present that is often added with the water itself.

Once a specific W/C ratio is established for a given application, thiscan be used to describe the additive percentage in terms of weight ofcement, rather than weight of water. An example of this calculation isgiven for a W/C ratio of between 0.3 and 1.2 for an additive range ofbetween 0.7% to 10% by weight of water.

[Additive] = 0.7%  of  the  weight  of  water${0.3\frac{W}{C}} = {0.3\frac{{weight}\mspace{14mu}{of}\mspace{14mu}{water}}{{weight}\mspace{14mu}{of}\mspace{14mu}{cement}}}$$\begin{matrix}{\lbrack{Additive}\rbrack = {0.7\%\mspace{14mu}{by}\mspace{14mu}{weight}\mspace{14mu}{of}\mspace{14mu}{water}\mspace{14mu}*0.3\frac{{weight}\mspace{14mu}{of}\mspace{14mu}{water}}{{weight}\mspace{14mu}{of}\mspace{14mu}{cement}}}} \\{= {0.21\%\mspace{14mu}{by}\mspace{14mu}{weight}\mspace{14mu}{of}\mspace{14mu}{cement}}}\end{matrix}$ $\begin{matrix}{\lbrack{Additive}\rbrack = {10\%\mspace{14mu}{by}\mspace{14mu}{weight}\mspace{14mu}{of}\mspace{14mu}{water}\mspace{14mu}*1.2\frac{{weight}\mspace{14mu}{of}\mspace{14mu}{water}}{{weight}\mspace{14mu}{of}\mspace{14mu}{cement}}}} \\{= {12\%\mspace{14mu}{by}\mspace{14mu}{weight}\mspace{14mu}{of}\mspace{14mu}{cement}}}\end{matrix}$

In this manner, the weight of the additive can be expressed as apercentage of the weight of cement or of the weight of water.

Purposes and Advantages of the Present Invention

One of the advantages of the present invention is that it results in acement structure that has drastically lower permeability values to bothlarge and small gases when compared to traditional types of cement.

Ordinary petroleum well cements are based on the principles of PortlandCement. As NORSOK D010 and API Spec 10A are the current industrialstandards for operations in the oil and gas industry, it was importantthat the present invention is able to meet those standards in anaffordable manner. Of particular advantage of the present invention isthat it easily added to current well cements operations to improveperformance and meet standards. Many of the advantages of the presentinvention are apparent in the application of well cementing andcompleting, plugging, temporary and permanent abandonment of wells,including CO₂ injector wells and acidic (CO₂) and sour (H₂S) wells.

Industrial and private buildings in areas that need to have increasedgas proofing. Radon proofing and sealing off the base of buildings inareas that have gases emerging from the ground. Sealing off tunnels andpipelines that contain some gas. Sealing off potable water wells thatpass through gaseous zones.

The present invention solves the above-mentioned deficiencies. Oneskilled in the art will also note that the present invention alsoprovides other advantages and solves other technical problems than thosethat are explicitly disclosed above or later in this document.

DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

The above and further features of the invention are a set forth withparticularity in the appended claims and together with advantagesthereof will become clearer from consideration of the following detaileddescription. Embodiments of the present invention will now be described,by way of example only, with reference to the following diagramswherein:

FIG. 1A discloses results for a water saturated carbon dioxide withpermeability experiment.

FIG. 1B discloses results for a water saturated carbon dioxide withpermeability experiment.

FIG. 2 discloses results for a water saturated carbon dioxide withpermeability experiment.

FIG. 3 discloses experimental results for permeability of silicate addedcement and the cement of the present invention to nitrogen.

FIG. 4A discloses results for a nitrogen permeability experiment.

FIG. 4B discloses results for a nitrogen permeability experiment.

FIG. 5 discloses a test rig of measuring nitrogen permeability innitrogen experiments 2 and 3.

FIG. 6A discloses a structure inside a hollow container.

FIG. 6B discloses a structure surrounding a gas source.

DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS OF THE INVENTION

Reference will now be made in detail to the present embodiments of theinventions, examples of which are illustrated in the accompanyingdrawings. Alternative embodiments will also be presented. The drawingsare intended to be read in conjunction with both the summary, thedetailed description, and an any preferred and/or particularembodiments, specifically discussed or otherwise disclosed. Thisinvention may, however, be embodied in many different forms and shouldnot be construed as limited to the embodiments set forth herein. Theseembodiments are provided by way of illustration only. Several furtherembodiments, or combinations of the presented embodiments, will bewithin the scope of one skilled in the art.

Direction terms such as up, down, left, right, above, below, etc. arebeing used in reference to the orientation of the elements in thefigures. In no way is this intended as limiting.

This invention is an extension of previous work with a cementitiousmaterial that seal off liquids and gasses. However, we have found thatthe materials are significantly better at sealing off gaseous materialsthan previously predicted or expected. While liquids and supercriticalfluids are in the reservoirs of petroleum systems at crustal pressuresand temperatures, the phase transformation from liquid to fluid canbring on a major pressure release. This e.g. can occur when liquids inthe reservoir zone under pressure flows toward and into the well withless pressure. This invention works well for salt-water or fresh waterused in mixing the slurry.

At formation pressures and -temperatures a gas may be transformed to asupercritical fluid. An example is CO₂ gas, which becomes supercriticalat temperatures above 31° C. at a pressure of 73.8 bar. Supercriticalfluids have a viscosity similar to a gas but a density similar to thecorresponding liquid.

Permeability is dependent on the viscosity of the gas or fluid that isflowing through the matrix. Therefore, the properties of thesupercritical fluids are similar to the properties of the correspondinggas in this invention. The supercritical fluid of a gas molecule (e.g.CO₂, H₂S, N₂, CH₄) will behave roughly same as a non-supercritical fluidof a gas molecule with regards to the reduced permeability properties ofthe invention.

The inventors observed that very low concentrations of magnesium-ironsilicate may have properties that are significant for operations thatneed blends very close to ordinary blends, while exploiting gasproofing. Likewise, blends that are nearly all magnesium-iron silicateswith a small concentration of cementitious materials will potentiallyneed longer to set but will have a much lower permeability once set. Asmentioned previously, the inventors observed that magnesium-ironsilicates provided self-healing characteristics. However, the reductionin permeability was incredibly surprising even in the face of thepotential self-healing properties.

FIGS. 6A and 6B disclose schematically how a structure made from theinventive mixture can be used in different circumstances for creating agas proof structure. In both figures, the arrows represent a gaspressing against the cementitious structure 100. In FIG. 6A, a hollowcontainer 200 (e.g. pipe or production casing) has a cementitiousstructure 100 (e.g. plug) bonded to the inside of it. This creates afirst region 300A and a second region 300B where gas does not transfer(or move) from one region to the other 300A/300B. This is a commonmethod that could be used in the case of needing to plug a hydrocarbonwell during plugging and abandonment (or carbon capture and storage).FIG. 6B discloses an example where the cementitious structure 100 is notinside of a pipe. Instead, it is shown as surrounding a gas source. Thisprevents the gas inside of the structure 100 from moving from the firstregion 300A to the second region 300B.

Though FIGS. 6A and 6B indicate that there is gas pressure on a singleside of the cementitious structure 100, this is by way of example only.The invention could be used to keep two or more sources of gas separateif desired.

The invention is well suited for use in making plugs and other cementstructures to prevent gas from moving or flowing into areas where it isnot wanted.

The term “gas proof” refers to a structure having a low enough gaspermeability that, ideally, a gas cannot cross from one region toanother. However, depending upon the application, a gas permeabilitylower than an accepted threshold will be considered sufficiently “gasproof”.

Carbon Dioxide Experiments:

Numerous experiments were performed to measure the permeability of acement structure (e.g. plug) to water saturated with carbon dioxide.Note that usually a cement plug will be about 100 times more permeableto gas than it is to a liquid.

Carbon Dioxide Experiment 1

Previous work in U.S. Ser. No. 10/774,001 has shown that a mixtureincluding olivine has properties related to self-healing in the presenceof water or carbon dioxide. This includes a disclosure of reduction ofpermeability after a multiple day exposure to water saturated with CO2.This was thought to be due to water or saltwater being carried into thepores and voids and triggering the “self-healing” reactions that resultin matter being precipitated there.

The results of such an experiment are shown in FIG. 1A. This experimentwas performed using 20% of olivine by weight. The sleeve volume waspressurized with 50 bar of nitrogen, and the core outlet was connectedto a burette for collection of gas. Leakage of gas through the sleevewas monitored for a period of 24 hours. Finally, nitrogen was displacedwith a viscous paraffin at a constant pressure of 50 bars. The paraffinwas injected from the bottom and nitrogen was bleed off from the top viaback pressure valve.

Prior to injection, the core sample was heated to a stable temperatureof 60° C. and pressurized to a confining pressure of 110 bar, where bothparameters, where kept constant throughout the experiment. Seawater(saturated with CO₂) was subsequently injected into the core with a highpressure Quizix piston pump. Flow rate was set at low as 360microliters/hour, and back pressure was set to 10 bars. Differentialpressure was measured at steady state conditions at each rate, andpermeability calculated according to Darcy's Law.

An additional, a long-term seawater test was conducted, and thepermeability calculated. The initial permeability was 0.26 μDarcy. Afternearly 11 days of brine flooding and 45 ml of seawater injected, thepermeability reduced to 0.129 μDarcy, as shown in FIG. 1A. The line withfilled circles represents the permeability and the smooth line representfor the injection pressure.

Carbon Dioxide Experiment 2

An experiment was performed where sea water saturated with carbondioxide was forced through the sample as it cured. The results are shownin FIG. 1B, where “Volume SSW Injected” stands for the volume ofsaturated seawater was injected into the test rig. Of interest in bothFIG. 1A and FIG. 1B is the behavior of the solid line that representsthe injection pressure. As can be seen, in FIG. 1A, at around 8.5 days,the injection pressure begins to vary in an erratic manner. Thisbehavior is also observed in FIG. 1B around 35 of SSW injected. This isdue to the cement having cured to a point where the gas cannot passthrough the sample in a controlled manner. This is very apparent whenlooking at the variation in the injection pressure of days 10-11. Thegas simply cannot pass through the sample in an appreciable manner. Atthis point, the sample is so impermeable that it makes the pressurebuild up and release in busters. This was causing the test rig to startjumping. These show that the permeability is being reduced to asurprisingly low degree.

Carbon Dioxide Experiment 3

Another experiment was performed that studied the results ofpermeability to brine that was saturated in CO2. Batch CO₂ exposure wasperformed for seven days in an autoclave at 90° C. and 280 bar. Thecores were submerged in 1.0 wt % NaCl-brine and dry CO₂ was pumped infrom the inlet at the top of the autoclave, forming a gas cap andensuring that the brine was saturated with CO₂. No brine was added orreplaced during the exposure.

Porosity before and after CO₂ exposure for batches with differentpercentages of the magnesium-iron silicate (olivine in this case) asshown in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1 Initial and final porosity after CO₂ exposure as estimated fromCT results. % Core Initial Final % Olivine Number Porosity PorosityReduced 20% 4 0.5 0.1 80% 5 1.2 0.4 67% 6 0.75 0.3 60% 35% 5 0.8 0.2 75%6 0.4 0.05 88% 50% 4 0.6 0.1 83%

This again shows the ability of the present invention to greatly reducethe permeability of cement to CO2 across the percentage ranges of themagnesium-iron silicate. It would be expected that the results wouldextend over a wider range.

Carbon Dioxide Experiment 4

Reference is now made to FIG. 2. Experiments were run to measure thepermeability of cured cement to carbon dioxide. A blend of cementitiousmaterials containing 19.6 wt % out of total solids of olivine, and wateradded as required, was blended by the normal API 10A Standard methods.The materials were cemented into a sleeve, cured under pressure for oneweek at 60° C. Water was then flooded through the sample. After about100 hours, CO2 was added to the water, resulting in a steady decline ofthe permeability of the sample. The measurements of the flow through thecement was made in ml/min resulting in very small numbers with a lot ofvariability in the measurements. Opening chambers for operationalprocedures also resulted in spikes and troughs in the measurements. Thisnoise and variability is omitted for clarity. The final permeability ofthe same was below 0.05 μDarcy.

Carbon Dioxide Experiment 5

In an experiment, solid cementitious mineral admixture products werefabricated based on a mixture of 80% Portland cement, and 20% olivine(which is a divalent magnesium-iron solid solution silicate) by weight,and water having an ordinary W/C number (W/C=water to cement ratio). Thefraction of olivine was 0.2 with denatured water added. A solidcementitious mineral admixture cylinder was prepared and flooded by aseawater analog brine for a period of eleven days. The changes ofpermeability was measured throughout the experiment and the porosity wasevaluated before and after the experiment by using a CT scanner.

The measurements showed that porosity of the product, when applying theinventive cementitious mineral admixture was reduced by as much as 55%,and permeability went down by 70% after said just eleven days exposed tobrine. The experiments show that the gas permeability of the resultingcement decreased.

Nitrogen Experiments

We will now discuss a series of different permeability experiments usingnitrogen gas. For these experiments, the gas will not be dissolved inwater. This is a different type of experiment than has been performedpreviously.

As discussed previously under Carbon Dioxide Experiment 1, when water orsaltwater is forced into the body of the solidified cement plug, theself-healing reactions cause the pores to fill with new material.However, in experiments that do not have an appreciable amount of water,this cannot be the case.

Any reduction in permeability of the cement to a gas which is notdissolved in water, is not expected in light of previous work with thisinventive mixture for self-healing. Note that the amount of water vaporthat can be dissolved in nitrogen is very low and will not significantlycontribute reducing permeability through self-healing.

Nitrogen Experiment 1

Reference is made to FIG. 3. These are the test results as described inSPE/IADC-194158-MS, where the Neat cement and the Silicate added cementshows high flow at low differential pressures, while the presentinvention over displays a significantly lower flow rate over the samedifferential pressures (Test A and Test B). Test A is represented byopen circles and a solid line, Test B is represented by closed circleswith a solid line, neat cement is represented by an open triangle, andsilicate added cement by a closed |triangle. The vertical axis is theflow rate in ml/min and the horizontal axis is differential pressure andis in units of bars.

A study published in SPE/IADC-194158-MS, shows how neat cement cured at66 degrees C. and silicate added cement cured at 120 degree C. inside asmooth casing tube under pressure, the cement was cured for four daysand then N₂ was allowed to be pushed through the cement-casingapparatus. The study indicated that neat and silicate added cement hadfairly significant leaks through the experiment and was not a good sealagainst flow of N₂ at even low differential pressures. The authors ofthe paper indicated that “Both cement systems, neat cement and silicacement, cured at their optimum temperature are not sufficient to producea tight seal plug. Leak path development at the interface is consistentwith shrinkage mechanism during hydration.”

The inventors replicated this experiment using 66 degree Centigrade and20% of the finely crushed olivine with 80% Portland cement in themixture. The results are shown FIG. 3. Test A and Test B indicate farsuperior sealing capacity of the material, even without adding expandingmaterials or other pozzolans. This shows that adding magnesium-ironsilicates, in particular olivine, will cause a continued hydraulicpressure towards the surrounding material providing a superior gassealant for as long as the mixture has magnesium-iron silicates present.

It can be shown that the permeability of a sample is inverselyproportional to the square of the differential pressure. FIG. 3 showsthat the best differential pressure achieved in by a sample of neatcement or a silicate cement is about 4 bar. Test A achieved adifferential pressure of about 15 bar and Test B of about 30.5 bar.These indicate that the permeability of the cement of Test A was about7% and Test B about 1% that of the neat/silicate cement.

Nitrogen Experiment 2

An experiment was conducted over a range of pressures in order toestablish the difference between the present invention and Portland Gcement. Each were made using a standard process and a standard water tosolid ratio.

The setup consists of a custom-built test cell 10 containing the cementplug placed inside a heating cabinet for temperature control, and aprocess board located outside the heating cabinet with the processtubing, valves, flow meters, pressure indicators, an automated pressureregulator and an automated logging system. A technical drawing of thetest cell 10 is shown in FIG. 4. The major components of the test cellare:

-   -   Bottom cap 2 with two Swagelok ⅛ ″ connection ports 21 and a        built-in movable teflon piston 23 used for retaining 22 the        cement slurry during curing.    -   Expandable steel pipe 1 with inner diameter of 50 mm, wall        thickness of 13 mm and a length allowing a maximum of 460 mm of        cement to be placed inside the pipe.    -   Top cap 3 with two Swagelok ⅛ ″ connection ports 31.

A pressure test at 100 bar and 22° C. was performed on the test cellshowing no signs of deformation on pipe diameter or damage to the pipethreads.

The test setup is also equipped with a temperature probe for control ofthe experimental conditions. The output data from the tests is thedifferential pressure needed to observe breakthrough of gas through thecement plug, and the relationship between the measured flow rate anddifferential pressure across the cement plug. Possible manipulatedvariables for the test setup can be the cement type and casing surfaceproperties.

Before every new experiment, a pressure test was performed on every newtest cell. This was done by fully mounting the test setup with no cementinside the cell. The setup would then be pressured up to the workingpressure (20 bar) and the main valve to the pressure bottle would beclosed. By monitoring the decrease in pressure over a period of 1-2hours, the level of gas leakage from the entire setup was monitored. Inan ideal situation there would be zero leakage; in a case of losing morethe ˜1 bar over 1 hour an attempt to localize the leakage would beperformed. If the pressure test was assessed to be successful, the gasin the setup would be evacuated and the top cap to the test cell wouldbe unscrewed.

The cement placement was performed by moving the teflon piston in itstop-position and by pouring the designated cement volume into the testcell. All valves would be opened, and the automated pressure regulatorwould be set to maintain a minimum pressure of 20 bar. The top cap wouldbe screwed in place tightly and the cell would be carefully pressurizedto 20 bars. The cement plug would be left to cure at 20 bar and 66° C.for 5 days.

The cement plug integrity test started by moving the teflon piston down,leading to an open volume above and below the cement plug. By closing avalve, the two chambers would be isolated from each other and the onlyconnection between them could be through the cement plug. By using theautomated pressure-regulator a controlled differential pressure acrossthe cement plug was generated. When the differential pressure was largeenough for enabling flow through the cement plug, the pressure regulatorconnected to the bottom chamber would detect a decrease in pressure, andthe regulator would try to maintain the set pressure. This flow of gasfrom the gas bottle through the process line would be detected by theflow meters. A sequential increase in the differential pressure would beapplied to the cement plug. Thus, each experiment gives the pressuredifferential to which there is gas breakthrough the cement plug, and therelationship between the applied differential pressure and the flow ratethrough the cement plug. Figure (The one with the data) shows the rawdata of flow rate and differential pressure plotted versus time for oneof the experiments. For the data analysis and presentation of datastable values of the flow rate and differential pressure would beextracted and plotted against each other.

Test samples were made using 0%, 20%, and 80% of olivine by weight oftotal cementitious solids. The results of this are shown in the tablebelow:

TABLE 2 Permeability of Sample/Permeability of net Portland Cement % ofMagnesium-Iron Permeability Relative % Silicate Pressure (bar) toPortland Cement 20% 1.014 4.0% 20% 1.073 4.6% 20% 1.084 3.4% 20% 1.0841.9% 80% 1.620 1.7% 80% 1.223 1.5% 80% 1.590 1.0%

This clearly shows the improvement of the present invention whencompared to Portland G for permeability to nitrogen over a wide range ofpressures.

Nitrogen Experiment 3

Reference is now made to FIGS. 4A and 4B. Experiments were run tomeasure the permeability of cured cement to nitrogen. One set ofexperiments were made with repeated runs of 20% magnesium-iron silicateand 80% Portland G cement, measured by weight of dry materials. Theother set was made with repeated runs of 80% magnesium-iron silicate and20% Portland G measured by weight of dry materials. In both sets ofexperiments, the solids were mixed neat with water (in a water-to-solidsratio of 0.44) and the slurry was poured into a test chamber where thematerials were cured.

The setup for a cement plug test consists of a custom-built test cellcontaining the cement plug placed inside a heating cabinet fortemperature control, and a process board located outside the heatingcabinet with the process tubing, valves, flow meters, pressureindicators, an automated pressure regulator and an automated loggingsystem.

The results of the 20% magnesium-iron silicate tests are shown in FIG.4A. The lines on the left most side of the figure are from samples ofregular Portland G (marked with a filled triangle). These show that itdoes not take a high differential pressure to get a high flow ratethrough (or around) the sample.

Compare those to the two other lines on FIG. 4A. Each of these representa different test run (test run A with solid circles and test run B withopen circles). It was surprising that one of the 20% samples cantolerate over 12.5 times as much differential pressure to reach a 30mL/min of flow rate. The second sample performed even better. Even at adifferential pressure of 45, the flow rate is half of the other samples.Notice that the result shows that the cement is almost impermeable tonitrogen, even under a large pressure differential. In fact, the testring was not able to supply enough pressure in order to achieve the sameflow rate as the other samples. A simple regression of the dataestimates that it would take a differential pressure of over 110 bar/mto cause the same flow rate through the sample (tolerating over 36.5times as much differential pressure than the reference samples).

Reference is made to FIG. 4B. FIG. 4B shows the results of the tests ofFIG. 4A using samples with 80% magnesium-iron silicates. Both of thesetests (test A with a closed circle and test b with an asterisk) show animproved behavior when compared to the Portland G to differentialpressure.

It can be shown that the permeability of a sample is inverselyproportional to the square of the differential pressure. FIGS. 4A and 4Bdemonstrate that the present invention makes cured cement with asurprisingly lower permeability to nitrogen when compared to Portland Gcement.

Nitrogen Experiment 5

The permeability of a solidified test sample from the present inventionwas measured using an apparatus as disclosed in Appendix B-4.11(“Permeability”) of “Well Cementing”, second edition, edited by Erik B.Nelson and Dominique Guillot. This type of test apparatus and setup iswell known in the industry where cement permeability to gas needs to bemeasured.

The samples had a measured permeability of between 0.03 μD and 0.006 μDto nitrogen gas.

As nitrogen gas has a very small diameter, it is expected that moleculesof approximately the same size (e.g. methane) or larger molecules (e.g.carbon dioxide) will also behave similarly.

It is a very surprising for such a large reduction of gas permeability.The present invention should be able to achieve solid structures with agas permeability of at most 1 μD, preferably 0.5 μD, more preferably 0.1μD, even more preferably 0.05 μD, and most preferably 0.005 μD.

Something that must be kept in mind is that gases have, in general,viscosities (compared to liquids) that indicate that if a low viscositygas is not passing through, then the higher viscosity gas will not passthrough (per Darcy's law). In other words, if nitrogen gas does not havethe possibility to pass through the pores of the cement it will not bepossible for gas types (e.g. CO2, CH4, and H2S being some of the mostimportant) to pass through the pore pathway (e.g. permeability) of thecement.

Additionally, this behavior will be the same if the cement is insaltwater or freshwater. Nitrogen does not dissolve appreciable inwater, and salt would not change this situation, so it is readilyapparent that the results of the nitrogen experiments can be extended tosaltwater. It is well known that saltwater will degrade the structure ofregular cement. Using freshwater causes less of this degradation. Whileit is surprising how well the present invention performs in saltwater,there is no reason to assume that it will not perform as well or betterin fresh water. It is expected that water has a chloride concentrationof between 0.4% to 14% by weight of water would not appreciably affectthe previously presented permeability results. The most common saltwaterthat are found has a chloride concentration of between 0.7% and 10% byweight of water. Freshwater sources will normally have a chlorideconcentration of less than 250 mg/L.

For guidance of one skilled in the art, the table below gives thepercentage of magnesium-iron silicates in the solid mixture that arehighly suited to different applications:

TABLE 3 Effect of percentage of magnesium-iron silicates on differentdesired characteristics on the final cement structure Ideal % ofMagnesium-Iron Silicate Characteristic Low High High Strength of Solid 235 Expansion to Compensate Shrinking 10 98 Sealing of Pores and Channels15 99 Sealing of Pore Necks 2 99

The table above is not a definitive statement of where the presentinvention has no effect. It is intended to give one skilled in the artan understanding of ranges to choose if one than one effect isimportant. For example, the range of 15% to 35% shows the best balanceof characteristics for numerous applications. However, tests that havebeen performed of strength at 10% and 55% magnesium-iron silicate havedemonstrated that the present invention is a significant improvementover Portland G.

In the current state of the cement industry, 10-55% is the easiest rangefor a company to add to their current production line. With a change inthe process, however, the other ranges of use described in the tableabove, will be achieved. As shown above, the gas permeabilitycharacteristics of the present invention are very desirable over a largerange of percentages.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A cementitious mixture for reduced gaspermeability that comprises: a) an alkaline cement; b) one or moredivalent magnesium-iron silicates of the mineral group olivines that inneutral or basic aqueous solutions is a latent hydraulic bindercomprising 2% to 99% of divalent magnesium-iron silicate by weight oftotal hydraulic solid materials.
 2. The cementitious mixture of claim 1,wherein the magnesium-iron silicate is by weight of total hydraulicsolid is between 10% and 98%.
 3. The cementitious mixture of claim 1,wherein the magnesium-iron silicate by weight of total hydraulic solidis between 15% and 99%.
 4. The cementitious mixture of claim 1, whereinthe magnesium-iron silicate by weight of total hydraulic solid isbetween 10% and 55%.
 5. The cementitious mixture of claim 1, wherein themagnesium-iron silicate by weight of total hydraulic solid is between20% and 50%.
 6. The cementitious mixture of claim 1, wherein themagnesium-iron silicate by weight of total hydraulic solid is between20% and 80%.
 7. The cementitious mixture of claim 1, wherein themagnesium-iron silicate by weight of total hydraulic solid is between15% and 25%.
 8. A cementitious slurry for reduced gas permeability thatcomprises: a) an alkaline cement; b) water; and c) one or more divalentmagnesium-iron silicates of the mineral group olivines that in neutralor basic aqueous solutions is a latent hydraulic binder comprising 2% to99% of divalent magnesium-iron silicate by weight of total hydraulicsolid materials.
 9. The cementitious slurry of claim 8, wherein themagnesium-iron silicate by weight of total hydraulic solid is between15% and 25%.
 10. The cementitious slurry of claim 8, wherein themagnesium-iron silicate by weight of total hydraulic solid is between10% and 55%.
 11. The cementitious slurry of claim 8, wherein themagnesium-iron silicate by weight of total hydraulic solid is between20% and 80%.
 12. The cementitious slurry according to claim 8, whereinthe water has a chloride concentration of between 0.4% to 14 by weight.